Proceedings of the IFOAM workshop on Internal Control Systems (ICS)

<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
<strong>IFOAM</strong> <strong>workshop</strong> on Internal Control Systems (ICS) in <strong>the</strong> North
A. Workshop background
18 th <strong>of</strong> November 2005, Bonn, Germany
An Internal Control System (ICS) is a documented quality assurance system that
allows an external certification body to delegate <strong>the</strong> annual inspection <strong>of</strong> individual
group members to an identified body/unit within <strong>the</strong> certified operator. The organic
certification body <strong>the</strong>n mainly evaluates whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> ICS is working well and
efficiently, by checking <strong>the</strong> ICS documentation system and staff qualification, as well
as by carrying out re-inspection <strong>of</strong> a selected sub-set <strong>of</strong> individual farms. As a result
<strong>of</strong> this group certification based on ICS, producers are certified collectively with for
instance <strong>the</strong>ir co-operative owning <strong>the</strong> organic certificate.
To date, <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial regulations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three major organic markets (EU, US,
Japan) do not recognize ICS when implemented outside <strong>the</strong> OECD list <strong>of</strong> “developing
countries”, yet <strong>the</strong>re seems to be potential for real and efficient adoption <strong>of</strong> ICS in
<strong>the</strong> North. The International Federation <strong>of</strong> Organic Agriculture Movements (<strong>IFOAM</strong>) has
initiated a project aiming at facilitating <strong>the</strong> practical and <strong>of</strong>ficial adoption <strong>of</strong> ICS
in <strong>the</strong> North. The successive steps <strong>of</strong> this project are summarized in diagram 1 (page2).
This European Workshop on ICS in <strong>the</strong> North was part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall <strong>IFOAM</strong> project
aimed at facilitating <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> Internal Control Systems (ICS) in <strong>the</strong>
North. It brought current and potential stakeholders <strong>of</strong> ICS in Europe toge<strong>the</strong>r to
discuss <strong>the</strong> main challenges and way forward to facilitate <strong>the</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> ICS by <strong>the</strong>
EU.
The <strong>workshop</strong> focused on ICS in Europe, with Europe being conceived in its larger
definition, including, but not limited to <strong>the</strong> EU. Eastern and South-eastern European
countries and Turkey were also included in <strong>the</strong> discussion.
1

Diagram 1: Main planned activities and outputs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> project
“Facilitation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Implementation <strong>of</strong> Internal Control Systems (ICS) in <strong>the</strong> North”
2

B. Workshop attendees
Participant Organization Country E-mail
Mr. Senad Hopic Grolink Serbia senad@grolink.se
Mr. Resat CAKMAK Rapunzel Turkey
Switzerlan
resat.cakmak@rapunzel.com.tr
Ms. Ute Eisenlohr
Mr. Jordy van den
IMO
d ue@imo.ch
Akker Nature et Progrès
FNAB (Fédération
nationale
d'Agriculture
France petiteterre@tele2.fr
Mr. Anton Pinsch<strong>of</strong> biologique) France antonpinsch<strong>of</strong>@netcourrier.com
Ms. Michela Coli ICEA Italy fo@icea.info
Mr. Primoz Kriselj SOFA
Institute for
Inspection and
Certification <strong>of</strong>
Slovenia alenka.bratusa@guest.arnes.si
Ms. Polonca Repic Slovenia Slovenia polonca.repic@uni-mb.si
Mr. Giuseppe Cilento Cooperativa Cilento Italy gcilento@tiscali.it
Mr. Alexander Koch
Ms. Joelle Katto-
Andrighetto
Naturland Germany a.koch@naturland.de
(Coordinator)
Ms. Diane Bowen
<strong>IFOAM</strong> staff France intern-igo@ifoam.org
(Facilitator) <strong>IFOAM</strong> staff USA dianebowenxx@aol.com
Mr. Matthias Fecht <strong>IFOAM</strong> staff
Organic
Germany M.Fecht@ifoam.org
Services/<strong>IFOAM</strong>
g.herrmann@organic-
Mr. Gerald Herrmann president Germany services.com
Ms. Karen Ageson <strong>IFOAM</strong> staff Canada k.ageson@ifoam.org
C. Introduction round: participants’ experience and interest in ICS
The <strong>workshop</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>red participants with very different backgrounds and
responsibilities within <strong>the</strong> organic sector in Europe.
Certification bodies were represented by Ute Eisenlohr from IMO (Institute for
Market Ecology), Michela Coli from ICEA (Istituto per la Certificazione Etica e
Ambientale), Polonca Repic from <strong>the</strong> Institute for Inspection and Certification <strong>of</strong>
Slovenia and Alexander Koch from Naturland.
IMO has been working on ICS for a long time and was especially engaged in <strong>the</strong>
process <strong>of</strong> harmonization lead by <strong>IFOAM</strong>, that resulted in <strong>the</strong> EU acceptance <strong>of</strong> ICS for
<strong>the</strong> South. IMO is <strong>the</strong>refore particularly interested in <strong>the</strong> new step <strong>of</strong> ICS acceptance
and implementation in <strong>the</strong> EU countries, as well as in countries which would like to
enter <strong>the</strong> EU in <strong>the</strong> future. IMO recalled that ICS is primarily a management tool, that
is a quality management system that aims at managing and reducing risk among o<strong>the</strong>r
things.
3

ICEA started to work on ICS 3 years ago for organic production. The certification
body has some experience in ICS for typical products in contexts where <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong>
producers have less than 5 ha and depend on <strong>the</strong> exporters.
The Institute for Inspection and Certification <strong>of</strong> Slovenia is a certification
body that is part <strong>of</strong> a public university. It does not have experience with ICS so far
but is interested in investigating <strong>the</strong> potential for ICS in Slovenia.
Naturland is an organization with 180 members which are small farmers
organizations, representing more than 36,000 small scale farmers around <strong>the</strong> world. Most
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m are working with ICS. Naturland participated, toge<strong>the</strong>r with IMO, in <strong>the</strong>
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> ICS in <strong>the</strong> South, especially by editing <strong>the</strong> first
training manual on ICS. Given <strong>the</strong> real success <strong>of</strong> ICS in <strong>the</strong> South, and <strong>the</strong> fact that
some farmers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> North are also constrained by certification costs, Naturland is
interested in exploring <strong>the</strong> potential for ICS adoption in <strong>the</strong> North as well.
Producer organizations were represented by Anton Pinsch<strong>of</strong> from FNAB
(Fédération nationale d'agriculture biologique des régions de France), Jordy van den
Akker from Nature et Progrès, Giuseppe Cilento from Cooperativa Cilento and Primoz
Kriselj from <strong>the</strong> Union <strong>of</strong> organic farmers in Slovenia.
Giuseppe Cilento is <strong>the</strong> president <strong>of</strong> a Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italian cooperative encompassing
2,500 operators, most <strong>of</strong> which are very small farmers. The cooperative started to give
farmers assistance for preparing papers for inspection, as well as providing assistance
with marketing. The production systems encompass mainly olive oil and figs, with
processing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> products and a system to recycle <strong>the</strong> by-products <strong>of</strong> processing.
Nature et Progrès represents 360 farmers and o<strong>the</strong>r operators in France, and has a
total <strong>of</strong> 600 affiliates. Nature et Progrès Tarn (one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> French counties) has 30
pr<strong>of</strong>essional members. They have been doing internal inspections for Nature et Progrès
requirements for many years. Internal inspectors are not accredited by <strong>the</strong> French
Government and <strong>the</strong> Nature et Progrès certification does not <strong>the</strong>refore deliver <strong>the</strong>
<strong>of</strong>ficial organic logo AB. To obtain <strong>the</strong> organic status for <strong>the</strong>ir products, farmers <strong>of</strong>
Nature et Progrès must also be certified individually by an external accredited
certification body. However, around 60 farmers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group are only internally
controlled and market <strong>the</strong>ir products under <strong>the</strong> sole “Nature et Progrès” logo. This
system is based on Nature et Progrès’ long history and reputation and on <strong>the</strong> fact that
consumers know and trust N&P. However, it does not allow N&P products to be traded as
certified organic under EU law. Local N&P groups are geographically based and encompass
farms with very different products.
Primoz Kriselj is <strong>the</strong> Vice President <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union <strong>of</strong> organic farmers in Slovenia.
He explained that in Slovenia, <strong>the</strong>re are many small-scale farmers (although <strong>the</strong>
national average is 8 ha per farm). He recalled that <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> a small-scale
farmer in <strong>the</strong> ICS context, as well as in a general context, still needs to be defined.
4

Consultancies in organic agriculture were represented by Gerald Herrmann from
Organic Services (and president <strong>of</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong>); Resat CAKMAK, private consultant for
Razpunzel and Senad Hopic from Grolink.
Gerald Herrmann explained that he is convinced that <strong>the</strong> way third party
certification is done today will not allow all small family farms to be certified
organic in <strong>the</strong> future, if we are planning a reasonable increase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cultivated area
dedicated to organic agriculture. If OA is to represent 20% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cultivated land in
Europe, we are likely to face a situation where <strong>the</strong> bureaucratic machinery necessary to
manage individual data <strong>of</strong> each farmer will be such that <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> organic
certification will be unreasonably high for society. There is <strong>the</strong>refore a need to
explore new ways <strong>of</strong> organizing organic certification. ICS in <strong>the</strong> North is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se
new ways and this <strong>workshop</strong> is a first step. Later, we shall have to explore how to move
on <strong>the</strong> regulatory agenda (Codex, EU regulation, etc.).
Resat CAKMAK has been working as a consultant for Razpunzel for 13 years, as
project advisor. The company represents around 500 farmers in Turkey. He explained that
<strong>the</strong> Turkish certification system is different: companies are <strong>the</strong> ones holding <strong>the</strong>
organic certificate, not farmers. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, farmers have to undergo 100%
external annual inspections. Resat CAKMAK recalled that government regulations can be
changed, as shown by <strong>the</strong> recent change in <strong>the</strong> policy on certification <strong>of</strong> inputs in OA.
Grolink acquired experience in ICS through assisting in <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong>
smallholder groups for ICS (Wild Production) in Eastern Europe, as well as in o<strong>the</strong>r
parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world (Africa).
D. Brief Review <strong>of</strong> ICS history, experiences and trends
Diane Bowen made a presentation on <strong>the</strong> background <strong>of</strong> ICS. She recalled that ICS
for group certification has first been a concept for <strong>the</strong> “South” and is still so. She
also mentioned <strong>the</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> position on smallholder group certification, which states that
“In this submission we give our opinion about group certification for smallholders in
developing countries. However we also want to point out that <strong>the</strong>re may be a number <strong>of</strong>
o<strong>the</strong>r situations where group certification concepts may be relevant and applicable, and
we would like in <strong>the</strong> nearby future also to have a dialogue on <strong>the</strong>se issues”. The last
sentence refers to <strong>the</strong> EU Commission in particular and governments in general. Diane
explained that <strong>IFOAM</strong>s opinion is that <strong>the</strong>re may be situations in <strong>the</strong> North that merit
attention to <strong>the</strong> ICS Model, although <strong>the</strong> history and main application is in <strong>the</strong> South.
Diane Bowen explained that <strong>the</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> lies in supporting organic
certification in any way, and that includes supporting group certification in <strong>the</strong>
North, since it has proved to work well in <strong>the</strong> South. <strong>IFOAM</strong> has a special role to play
on ICS because it runs a global accreditation programme. <strong>IFOAM</strong>s activities towards
harmonization <strong>of</strong> ICS requirements (including 3 <strong>workshop</strong>s ga<strong>the</strong>ring CBs, growers,
5

traders, etc.) have been very successful, as <strong>the</strong>y have led <strong>the</strong> EU to accept ICS for <strong>the</strong>
South. <strong>IFOAM</strong> has also published a position on ICS, which also outlines its potential
for <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn context. The role <strong>of</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> members has been crucial in achieving ICS
recognition: innovators like IMO and Naturland have for instance contributed greatly.
E. ICS potential and obstacles
Referring mainly to <strong>the</strong> conditions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own countries, <strong>the</strong> participants
identified <strong>the</strong> following obstacles to ICS implementation in Europe.
Obstacles Areas <strong>of</strong> application
Farmers don’t usually like giving up some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir All represented countries
independence. This is especially problematic in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong>
collective marketing that might exclude individual marketing
<strong>of</strong> produce, while individual marketing is an important
strategy for farmers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> North. This was reflected in a
participant’s statement that cooperatives are <strong>of</strong>ten more a
problem than a solution, e.g. when <strong>the</strong>y request 100% sale <strong>of</strong>
a certain product to <strong>the</strong> cooperative (requirement that might
also be necessary under an ICS).
Cultural resistance <strong>of</strong> most Nor<strong>the</strong>rn farmers (and All represented countries
especially <strong>of</strong> organic farmers) towards being in a group
and cooperating. Organic farmers are mainly individualists,
and this is partly because <strong>the</strong>y started individually. They
need external input in order to cooperate. This is however
not always true: some farmers have a group custom and some
even have common marketing, although <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten don’t want to
cooperate too much. This is culturally determined.
Lack <strong>of</strong> government sensitivity and vision for small All represented countries
producers.
Lack <strong>of</strong> clearly defined vision on eligible groups for ICS
(how to define <strong>the</strong> group?). The participants decided that
this question is crucial (see part F <strong>of</strong> this report).
General
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn farmers tend to have diverse crops in different Most countries but less
market channels, with each farmer having his “own” true in Mediterranean and
marketing. If group certification is based on common marketed Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Europe countries
products <strong>the</strong> problem remains what to do about <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r where common marketing is
products that are not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group certification scheme? more common
Initial organization into an ICS is difficult (need for All represented countries
advice but lack <strong>of</strong> awareness <strong>of</strong> that), costly (financial
resources needed for advice and system building) and risky
(initial financial investment in ICS establishment while ICS
project might stop). In addition, <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> difficulty <strong>of</strong>
distinguishing <strong>the</strong> roles <strong>of</strong> inspectors and advisors.
Costs <strong>of</strong> running ICS (internal inspection + external Especially in western
inspection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system and partial re-inspection <strong>of</strong> Europe countries
farmers). In particular, internal inspections are more costly
in <strong>the</strong> North than in <strong>the</strong> South due to high labour costs.
Diversity <strong>of</strong> European production systems makes General
coordination and advocacy difficult.
Lack <strong>of</strong> capacity for proper documentation and for In all represented
understanding EU regulation criteria thoroughly, especially countries and especially
regarding livestock.
in Eastern Europe
Legal constraint regarding minimum size <strong>of</strong> farmed land.
e.g. in France, below 2 ha you are not recognized as a
farmer.
France
6

In some contexts, farmers get certified organic because <strong>of</strong>
subsidies ra<strong>the</strong>r than because <strong>of</strong> export � low incentive to
increase quality.
Slovenia
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> following opportunities /potentials for ICS in Europe were
identified:
Potential Areas <strong>of</strong> application
ICS is <strong>the</strong> only option for some small producers Sou<strong>the</strong>rn & eastern Europe
ICS are quality management systems that can help improve All represented countries
<strong>the</strong> quality (organic and o<strong>the</strong>rwise) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> products.
Certification is only a part (and maybe last step) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
quality improvement process.
Group systems increase individual and collective knowledge All represented countries
Proximity <strong>of</strong> internal inspectors might help farmers to also
get advice and networking help (although <strong>the</strong>re is a risk <strong>of</strong>
conflict <strong>of</strong> interests).
All represented countries
Overall purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group, which goes much beyond All represented countries
certification (e.g. advice, information, machinery sharing).
Group certification can lead to o<strong>the</strong>r innovations (e.g.
PGS).
All represented countries
Existence <strong>of</strong> organised local organic farmer groups. E.g. France
in France, 77 county groups /GABs, groupements d’agriculteurs
biologiques, organized in regional and national federation
(FNAB). Each GAB represents between 100 and 200 farmers.
These GAB’s main functions are to organize <strong>the</strong> distribution
<strong>of</strong> subsidies, to organize training and common purchase <strong>of</strong>
inputs. Sometimes, <strong>the</strong>y help <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> marketing
cooperatives. The advantage <strong>of</strong> such organizations is <strong>the</strong>ir
advocacy potential due to <strong>the</strong>ir strong national
federation.
Possibility <strong>of</strong> acceptance <strong>of</strong> “internal inspectors” by <strong>the</strong> France
EU system (e.g. in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Nature et Progrès, help get
rid <strong>of</strong> double certification that most farmers <strong>of</strong> N&P undergo
in order to get public subsidies, while <strong>the</strong>y prefer <strong>the</strong> N&P
label from a historical and ethical point <strong>of</strong> view).
Land fragmentation causes unsolvable problems for current Italy, Eastern and South-
certification schemes. In Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italy for instance, <strong>the</strong>
market is becoming bigger & bigger while farms become smaller
&smaller. ICS could help solve <strong>the</strong> certification problem.
eastern Europe
Some existing cooperatives are already well positioned to France, Italy, and
start ICS (have most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> necessary structures already, potentially in o<strong>the</strong>r
including internal documentation).
countries
New farmers coming in that could easily be organized. France and perhaps o<strong>the</strong>r
western European countries
Some cases in which cost <strong>of</strong> labour is low and which have Sou<strong>the</strong>rn-Eastern Europe
common marketing.
The fact that everyone has to pay for one person’s mistake
leads to better and “truer” internal control.
All represented countries
F. Scope <strong>of</strong> group certification in Europe: defining <strong>the</strong> group
7
Considering that:
- <strong>the</strong>re are dynamic changes in farm size (e.g. a medium size farm today is a small
farm tomorrow)

- o<strong>the</strong>r label systems (e.g. ISO, EuropGap) do not define size for <strong>the</strong>ir inspection
systems (Option 2 allows group system without limiting it to small scale farmers)
- Some big farmers are indeed organized under a common marketing and have o<strong>the</strong>r
potentials in regard to group certification.
The <strong>workshop</strong> participants agreed that it would be best not to set farm size limits to
ICS eligibility in Europe.
The major question participants tried to address was <strong>the</strong> dilemma between
diversification <strong>of</strong> products and markets versus similar production systems and common
marketing. Ute Eisenlohr explained <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong> requirement for <strong>the</strong> group to
have“similar production systems” and “common marketing” had been included within <strong>the</strong> EU
guidance document and <strong>the</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> Accreditation Criteria. She showed that both internal
record keeping for product flow control and external certification <strong>of</strong> an ICS become
more and more difficult and costly as <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> products and flows managed under
<strong>the</strong> ICS increases. For instance, different forms and procedures have to be designed and
implemented for each type <strong>of</strong> production system with <strong>the</strong> ICS: this becomes very costly
to develop and manage. The cost can <strong>the</strong>n easily become bigger than <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong>
individual external inspection. Common marketing is also required because it is <strong>the</strong>
simplest way <strong>of</strong> ensuring that all product sales are recorded under <strong>the</strong> ICS
documentation.
In conclusion, it is likely to be possible but costly to accommodate diversity.
Increasing cost might be balanced through benefits and added value o<strong>the</strong>r than just
reduced external certification costs (e.g. multi-benefits for <strong>the</strong> group), in a way that
ICS might be applicable and beneficial to groups that exist only politically (nothing
else in common except regional proximity). It is also important to try to accommodate
diversity because organic agriculture is based on diversity.
The participants <strong>the</strong>refore proposed to investigate how ICS can handle diversified
production. This would be done through pilot projects on diversified systems, clearly
distinguished from pilot projects based on traditional systems eligible for ICS.
G. Pilot projects on ICS in Europe
The principle <strong>of</strong> pilot projects will be to set-up and run an ICS among a group <strong>of</strong>
certified organic farmers, in parallel to <strong>the</strong>ir present individual certification so
that farmers keep <strong>the</strong>ir legal organic label in a legal way (since ICS is not yet
accepted). In a sense, <strong>the</strong>se pilot projects would be virtual: <strong>the</strong>y would just look like
real ICS but <strong>the</strong> process would not go as far as delivering an organic certificate for
<strong>the</strong> group. The o<strong>the</strong>r reason behind carrying out “double” certification is that it will
allow comparison <strong>of</strong> costs within each ICS group (cost <strong>of</strong> group certification versus
cost <strong>of</strong> individual certification). Indeed, comparison between different groups would
not make sense because <strong>of</strong> different group composition, activities and environment. The
objective <strong>of</strong> studying <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> ICS on <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> quality could be met by
8

having sub-groups, with a certain group carrying out an ICS pilot project while <strong>the</strong>
rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group continues with individual external inspection, which would allow
comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two sub-groups regarding quality management.
Conformity
with existing
<strong>IFOAM</strong>
Accreditation
Criteria (AC)
for ICS
Re-inspection
rate
The two types <strong>of</strong> pilot projects can be described as follows:
“Traditional” ICS pilot projects “Diversified” ICS pilot projects
Follows <strong>the</strong> current AC requirements
(i.e. common marketing <strong>of</strong> 1 or
several products, similar production
systems, geographic proximity),
except that it is open to farmers
without restriction on farm size
In conformity with AC requirements
(at least 10 external re-inspections
in minimum risk situation)
Target groups Groups that have cooperation culture
and meet AC requirements
Goal <strong>of</strong> pilot
project
Geographic
zones
Criteria for
selection
Process for
moving on
9
Demonstrate feasibility and
pr<strong>of</strong>itability <strong>of</strong> ICS in Europe � use
as lobbying argument towards <strong>the</strong> EU
in <strong>the</strong> medium term
Encourage eligible groups to build up
ICS once it is accepted
=> Demonstration oriented
In <strong>the</strong> EU and non EU In <strong>the</strong> EU
Some pilot projects should be
established through farmer groups and
o<strong>the</strong>rs should be established through
purchasing companies (especially in
cases where farmers have poor culture
<strong>of</strong> cooperation).
Some ICS pilot projects should
include livestock production, so that
ICS from eastern Europe can learn.
Minimum size <strong>of</strong> farmer group for
pilot project is 20. Ideal size is 30
or more, as long as number is not an
economic burden to <strong>the</strong> pilot group.
<strong>IFOAM</strong> to fur<strong>the</strong>r develop <strong>the</strong> pilot
project planning and to establish
criteria for selection <strong>of</strong> groups.
Participants to contact selected
groups to investigate possibility and
interest in pilot projects.
Does not follow current AC
requirements
Open to discussion. We could go less
than 10 re-inspections
Groups that have a long history and
strong capacity to manage complexity
in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> internal control
(e.g. N&P)
Investigate <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> ICS
managing diversity and identify
necessary pre-conditions to/criteria
for effective diversity management
� results <strong>of</strong> pilot projects to be
used for lobbying in <strong>the</strong> long term
(after simple ICS have been
accepted) if it is proved that we
can cope with all <strong>the</strong> risks
=> research oriented
Close proximity (territorial basis)
Existing “internal” control system
Should encompass 2 types: common
marketing and individual marketing
Same
Requirements have to be compatible
with existing system (new system
should not lead to stricter
requirements for ICS in <strong>the</strong>
developing world)
Multiple steps and participatory
process before starting <strong>the</strong>se
diversified pilot projects. Needs
some time and planning to avoid
frustrating people. Begin with good
ones like Italian or French groups
� <strong>the</strong>n planning for a more
developed strategy.

It is also important to bear in mind that ICS are not aimed at being applicable
in all cases.
Since <strong>the</strong> ICS certification process will be a virtual one, pilot projects have to
be based on original incentives for farmers and for <strong>the</strong> certification body. The
participants identified <strong>the</strong> following possible incentives for farmer groups and CBs to
participate in ICS pilot projects:
10
• For <strong>the</strong> farmer groups:
- Improvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system and benefits <strong>of</strong> group dynamic
- Potential for gaining knowledge and capacity
- Having training financed by <strong>the</strong> pilot project
- O<strong>the</strong>r types <strong>of</strong> financial compensation for ICS but subject to project control, so
as to avoid distortion <strong>of</strong> incentives in reducing <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> running ICS (should
not have an economic influence on <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong>y set up <strong>the</strong> system)
• For <strong>the</strong> purchasing companies:
- Research and development investment (when ICS are accepted, <strong>the</strong>y will be ahead
and will have built capacity)
- Prestige: be leaders <strong>of</strong> change (look for leaders!)
- Some funding compensation for recognition <strong>of</strong> efforts made
• For <strong>the</strong> certification bodies
- Some CBs have adoption <strong>of</strong> ICS as a goal because <strong>the</strong>y are loosing smallholders and
<strong>the</strong> big processing companies that go with <strong>the</strong>m
- Having training financed by <strong>the</strong> pilot project � at <strong>the</strong> end, <strong>the</strong>y will have
procedures and capacity ready for inspection <strong>of</strong> ICS, when accepted by <strong>the</strong> EU
- Goal is to promote OA, including through innovative means
We should be careful before designing complex requirements for ICS in <strong>the</strong> North
(e.g. minimal staff qualification) because <strong>the</strong>re is a risk that <strong>the</strong> stricter
criteria will end up being applied to developing countries as well, yet <strong>the</strong>ir
systems are already at <strong>the</strong> limit <strong>of</strong> what is economically feasible. It is safest to
design flexible criteria such as that staff qualification should be based on
experience. In any case, <strong>the</strong> risk evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> groups is a key component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
ICS approach.

Conclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>workshop</strong>
Participants were unanimous about <strong>the</strong> usefulness and productivity <strong>of</strong> this
<strong>workshop</strong>. The <strong>workshop</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>red <strong>the</strong> right number <strong>of</strong> people and led to good and targeted
outputs. It was agreed that, since most participants will be present at BioFach in
Nuremberg in February 2006, this would be a good time to arrange a short follow-up
meeting to assess progress made by <strong>the</strong>n and ga<strong>the</strong>r more ideas on how to continue. It
was suggested that some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> good pilot project candidates identified by <strong>the</strong>n will
also be invited to <strong>the</strong> discussion.
Selected quotations!
“Since organic agriculture comes from us, <strong>the</strong>y [<strong>the</strong> EU and o<strong>the</strong>r governments] should
not object to something that comes from us” Anton Pinsch<strong>of</strong>
“We have to be careful to open one door after <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r” Ute Einsenlohr
“The system has proved to work, so why do we have to prove again that it can work?” Ute
Eisenlohr
“If you want to put 3 farmers under 1 leader, you need to kill 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m!” Primoz
Kriselj
11